My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPP282
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
20000-20849
>
WSPP282
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:16:09 PM
Creation date
4/23/2007 9:57:45 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.39.C
Description
Colorado River Threatened-Endangered - RIPRAP - CFOPS - Water Availability
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/1/2003
Author
Brown and Caldwell
Title
Phase 2 Coordinated Facilities Water Availability Study for the Endangered Fishes of the Upper Colorado River - Tech Memo Number 12 - Comments-Responses to 01-01-03 - Draft - 03-01-03
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
67
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />000688 <br /> <br />5. Do the Ground Rules, Assumptions andAnalysis Procedures under which the CFOPS <br />investigation has been conducted provide sufficient basis on which to develop a <br />CFOPS recommendation? Or, do additional Ground Rules need to be developed? <br /> <br />6. Comments focused on the situation in which an average of wet year would follow a <br />drought year and the peak flow in the average year/wet year would be in the target <br />range of 12,900 to 26,000 cfs. In this situation, concern was expressed about the <br />reluctance of operators to bypass inflows. The Service indicates in their comment 5 <br />(pages 2-3) indicates: I believe that the Service would have no problem with language in any <br />agreement worked out to allow reservoirs to opt out o/participating in peak-flowaugrnentation under <br />these conditionso From the standpoint of the Consultant Team, this offer by the Service <br />should considerably reduce the risk placed on CFOPS participants. <br /> <br />1.0 INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />The purpose of this memo is to provide: (1) a response to comments received from: <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Denver Water <br />Western Slope (Ray D. Tenney) <br />Bureau of Reclamation (Brent Uilenberg and Malcolm Wilson) <br />Division 5 Engineer's Office (Alan Martellaro) <br />Dan Luecke <br />U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />and (2) a draft recommendation for the Executive Committee's consideration. <br /> <br />2.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS <br /> <br />2.1 Responses to Specific Comments <br /> <br />Responses to specific comments are attached in Track Changes format for each of the responses <br />received. <br /> <br />2.2 General Summary of Comments <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />A discussion of the protocols or "rules" under which CFOPS would be conducted needs to <br />take place. USFWS will be the final decision-maker here, but the Executive Committee <br />should consider this in formulating its recommendations. <br /> <br />2. While CFOPS is voluntary, does it supersede CROS? <br /> <br />1. <br /> <br />3. An insurance pool must be part of the final recommendation. <br /> <br />P:\Data \GEN\CWCB\19665\Report Phase 2\ Technical Memorandum No. 12\TechMemo12.2.28.03.doc <br /> <br />3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.